Diffusion material for print view area

[digitaldog]

Well if we want to get real picky, there's only one D50 (which is an average of many measurements made all over the planet) and it's source is 93 million miles away. 

[Rand47]

. . . IF you study this a bit more, it might be a bit more clear to you and a few others:
http://lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/calibrating_digital_darkroom.pdf

Andrew,

Thank you for this reference!  I’d not come across it before.  It validates/reinforces some of my “over thinking” in regard to my editing space.  🤓

Others - While it is true that we cannot know/control the lighting conditions under which our work may ultimately be displayed, why wouldn’t we want to get is “as right as possible” and “the way we want our work to look” as the starting place?   Based on the illogic of the “we can’t know” position, why color manage at all?   Any print would be “good enough.”  It seems odd to me that we’ll “measurbate” endlessly on selecting VERY expensive cameras and lenses and argue about minute differences, then swallow a camel in the “don’t overthink” department with our final product / output.  I don’t get it.

Rand

[Peter McLennan]

Andrew,
  It seems odd to me that we’ll “measurbate” endlessly on selecting VERY expensive cameras and lenses and argue about minute differences, then swallow a camel in the “don’t overthink” department with our final product / output.  I don’t get it.
Rand

This argument parallels that of  "don't use third party inks". I refuse to submit to marketing bafflegab. I do tests and make up my own mind.

I watched numerous highly-paid Hollywood cinematographers use various diffusion materials on set for decades.  Their multi-million dollar projects and their own professional reputations were on the line.  As was mine when I used similar materials with similar results.

The proof is in the results, not the rules-based approach.  The human vision system is astoundingly complex.

https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Updated-Expanded-Margaret-Livingstone/dp/1419706926/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+biology+of+seeing&qid=1578675380&sr=8-1

[Rand47]

This argument parallels that of  "don't use third party inks". I refuse to submit to marketing bafflegab. I do tests and make up my own mind.

I watched numerous highly-paid Hollywood cinematographers use various diffusion materials on set for decades.  Their multi-million dollar projects and their own professional reputations were on the line.  As was mine when I used similar materials with similar results.

The proof is in the results, not the rules-based approach.  The human vision system is astoundingly complex.

https://www.amazon.com/Vision-Updated-Expanded-Margaret-Livingstone/dp/1419706926/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+biology+of+seeing&qid=1578675380&sr=8-1

I agree.  I don't see any argument/disagreement in what you've said.  And I don't see Andrew's comments (or mine) as "rules-based."  It just seems to me that starting off with "known," controlled values is the best place from which to depart as you see fit, once you have a feel for what you're doing.  I'm certain that your own creations were not just random with no thought to the desired outcome and consistency of look across the project.  So for someone like the OP, starting out to setup standard viewing conditions for his work, it seems logical to use "known" values / materials.  No "rules" there, I don't think, just the logical straightest line between A and B.

Rand

[digitaldog]

It seems odd to me that we’ll “measurbate” endlessly on selecting VERY expensive cameras and lenses and argue about minute differences, then swallow a camel in the “don’t overthink” department with our final product / output.  I don’t get it.

You usually hear this from people that make assumptions about color, have no tools to measure it, use a made up term to dismiss the concept of measuring things etc. Or a quote might help too:

"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."-Lord Kelvin

Do ask those who knock measurements if they've ever used a light meter. That might shut them up from making preposterously silly claims!

[deanwork]

The reason we have standards is because it allows us to communicate with each other. Those of us who have clients to communicate with weekly know the value of seeing the same hues, contrast, and brightness content at the same time so we can do that. That’s elementary and without that base point you don’t have a chance. But even my most amateur photographically unsophisticated clients understand that.

Edward Weston photographed without even a basic light meter, because for the most part he shot the same subject matter with the same camera, lens and film for his whole career, and he had no money.  That doesn’t mean it is smart to turn off the light meter on our dslrs. I do believe this thread has gone way beyond its usefulness.

You usually hear this from people that make assumptions about color, have no tools to measure it, use a made up term to dismiss the concept of measuring things etc. Or a quote might help too:

"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind."-Lord Kelvin

Do ask those who knock measurements if they've ever used a light meter. That might shut them up from making preposterously silly claims!

[digitaldog]

And with the “Sunny 16” rule at least for some films, you don’t need a light meter.
But I highly suspect, most of those who look down on color measurements and call it a silly name, measure all kinds of other attributes including light.

[Peter McLennan]

And with the “Sunny 16” rule at least for some films, you don’t need a light meter.
But I highly suspect, most of those who look down on color measurements and call it a silly name, measure all kinds of other attributes including light.

If your reply is directed at me, I don't "look down on colour measurements".  In fact, I carried several light-measuring instruments throughout my career and used them carefully.

In addition to being one of those Hollywood cinematographers who used Rosco and Lee products extensively, I hold a (Canadian) National Diploma of Technology in Instrumentation and Control Systems.  I understand the need for measurement standards.

I also subscribe to the axioms that "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" (Einstein)  and, "If it looks right, it probably is right"  (Me)

My reaction to the original poster's question was based on the assumption that he'd have to buy an entire roll of Rosco material in order to solve his problem.  An unnecessary expense, IMO.

[digitaldog]

My reply was in general to those who accuse others that they ” measurbate“. Nothing more.
Simple can be good, but....
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

[deanwork]

All I can say is if you thought he had to buy a entire roll of rosco diffusion gel for such a tiny job then you know pretty much nothing about lighting, degree or no degree, it’s been the same for at least 35 years.

If your reply is directed at me, I don't "look down on colour measurements".  In fact, I carried several light-measuring instruments throughout my career and used them carefully.

In addition to being one of those Hollywood cinematographers who used Rosco and Lee products extensively, I hold a (Canadian) National Diploma of Technology in Instrumentation and Control Systems.  I understand the need for measurement standards.

I also subscribe to the axioms that "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" (Einstein)  and, "If it looks right, it probably is right"  (Me)

My reaction to the original poster's question was based on the assumption that he'd have to buy an entire roll of Rosco material in order to solve his problem.  An unnecessary expense, IMO.

[Peter McLennan]

All I can say is if you thought he had to buy a entire roll of rosco diffusion gel for such a tiny job then you know pretty much nothing about lighting, degree or no degree, it’s been the same for at least 35 years.

The degree never formed a part of my career.  I did work as a cinematographer for several decades. I'm on IMDB, if you care to look there.

In my market, there's no way to purchase a few feet of Rosco materials.  Full rolls only.  Unless you know someone on the grip truck.

[deanwork]

Peter,

Rosco has always sold 20x24 sheets of the diffusion material that you can cut down as well as smaller sheets from all of my past experience.

You can also receive a swatch book of everything they make for free.

John

The degree never formed a part of my career.  I did work as a cinematographer for several decades. I'm on IMDB, if you care to look there.

In my market, there's no way to purchase a few feet of Rosco materials.  Full rolls only.  Unless you know someone on the grip truck.

[Peter McLennan]

Thanks, John.  I must have a few old Rosco swatchbooks sitting around in drawers.  Never seen sheets for sale in my market, though. 
Not that I cared.  I never had to purchase them, I just asked the grips.

[Dan Wells]

Could this be as simple as "Hollywood supply houses don't stock smaller sheets of Rosco material, because movies use a lot of lights"?

B&H has all sorts of sheets of Rosco material, including neutrals (cheap, too) - but I wouldn't be surprised if AbelCine and friends didn't bother?

[deanwork]

This is nice, if they fit. Otherwise a 20x24 sheet which is much cheaper will work.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00NVXWLAU?ref_=pgi_2h3d2n3e4a350ai35ai63l7cdamh&tag=vzcmapper-us-20&ascsubtag=pgi-P04-V01-05-X92-LO-T1R3AT






B&H has all sorts of sheets of Rosco material, including neutrals (cheap, too) - but I wouldn't be surprised if AbelCine and friends didn't bother?
[/quote]